380 stopping power? Multiple shot considerations?

CoffeeGuns

380 stopping power? Multiple shot considerations?
Are multiple shots a good habit to get into for self defense?
Click to expand...

I do not know of any reputable handgun training program that does not teach to shoot at least twice to center of mass (COM), when encountering a single threat; with the common range of defensive handgun cartridges (9x19 up to .45s [but excluding those loads over say 240gr @ 1300fps 44 magnum territory]).

I have heard of some police departments that issue only 9mm autos teaching to shoot three times to center of mass, assess and proceed as necessary. Since 1976 at Gunsite it has been taught to shoot twice to center of mass, assess and proceed as necessary. At Gunsite the most popular cartridge is the .45 ACP.

Multiple shots are necessary because all defensive range cartridges are under powered. The energy of a .308 Winchester/7.62x51 (for me) is the standard battle rifle round. To approach that sort of damage in a human target many bullets of handgun ammunition would need to be delivered to the target. We compromise in size and weight of a handgun to be able to carry it all day; instead of an eight (or more) pound rifle. That handgun which is a smaller and lighter (compared to a rifle) package must also shoot a less powerful cartridge to be controllable.

Of course, tactics must change if you encounter multiple close threats.
 
I don't know where some of you have gotten your info. The rule is to shoot and continue to shoot until the perp is no longer a threat !! [neutralized ]. You don't stop after two rounds. You don't stop to analyse the results !!
 
I've had the chance to shoot a couple of animals...

if we look at their need to flee, as simulating a one shot stop situation... much more than 75% of the time, you'll find that one shot is not enough... even on pretty big calibers... I've seen little red pine squirrels trying to run up the tree again, after being knocked out of the branches, hit hard enough, to just about completely disenbowel them, yet they are scrambling trying to climb up the tree trunk ( they don't realize they are already dead )

I'll use my expirience with bigger pests... wood chucks, opposums, racoons, etc. I used to carry my 4" GP-100 around when working on the farm, I found that even a 357 COM to these kinds of varmints, didn't stop them from crawling off & dieing later ( often to a place I couldn't get them out of & had to live with the smell, or ??? I found the loads in the 357 that are generally thought of as one shot stoppers ( the 110 & 125 grain bullets loaded hot ) did not do a better job of stopping these critters than a 158 or 180 grain bullet doing a thorough & through... I don't personally think handgun rounds of any kind have enough velocity to put a serious hydrolic shock onto the target the way a 2500-3000 fps rifle does... & yet deer seem to run 100's of yards after they should be dead, shot with shotgun slugs or high velocity rifles

so... for me... the one shot stop... with nearly any handgun round is really a mute point... all will kill, but if a 357 mag 125 grain bullet won't stop a woodchuck from crawling off to die somewhere else, then it stands to reason, a drugged up bad guy 20 times the size is not going to drop right there either, short of a CNS shot

so 380... yep... I'm OK with it... I like bigger & often carry 44 Special or 45 Colt ( have 45 Colt on my belt right now ) but I also carry a 32 S&W or 38 S&W... I have a 380 lil plastic auto, for use in the summer during physical activities... I think the key is 2 things...

have a gun that you can shoot well... just the presence will likely stop almost all encounters you're likely to encounter

be prepared to deal with bad guy or bad guys if the gun doesn't stop them... I don't mean they'll be Zombies or one of the hollywood dramitisations of some elite para military trained group of bad guys who are willing to die, just to get you, for the $20.00 you have in your wallet... but if a drugged up bad guy takes 3-4 solid hits out of my 32 S&W revolvers 5 round capacity, I must be prepared for what is next... I might have to get physical with him, until he realizes that he's dead... just like the red squirrel trying to climb back up the tree... I might need to flee if bad guy also has a gun, or defend myself against his hand weapon, or give him a couple kicks in his wounds or what ever is needed... in this last situation... ( probably very unlikely to happen ) I'm not sure 3-4 more bullets would help, unless I can get lucky enough to hit the CNS... & even then... sometimes that head shot might not even put them down... see the Arizona assasination attempt
 
Last edited:
Conventional wisdom states that it's better to have any gun than to be unarmed. I don't agree with that. I think if you try to kill someone with an inadequate firearm that only pisses them off, all you do is increase the odds that you'll be killed.
Click to expand...

Look even a .22 will put a man in the ground. A larger gun will do it faster.

A .380 will get the job done. Speer Gold Dot and Corbon DPX consistently get 9" or more of penetration in testing. Unless you are shooting through a body builder's bicep first 9" will hit any of the vital organs.

Three shots slightly left of the sternum and about three fingers above the short ribs should do the trick. It will probably stop all but the most determined attacker. They aren't going to want to keep fighting. Not everybody is Platt from the Miami shootout.

If you are uncertain the gun will work, you should leave it at home. Hesitating once you pull it is much more likely to get you killed or injured than using it.

Most criminals are going to beat feet once the lead starts flying. Some will shoot it out. It is your job to make sure that, if they so choose, they are doing it while wounded and seeking cover. That is how it works no matter the caliber. No less than two shots and if the threat is still active takeneccesary action. If that is two to the chest or one to the head is your decision.
 
Last edited:
if we look at their need to flee, as simulating a one shot stop situation... much more than 75% of the time, you'll find that one shot is not enough... even on pretty big calibers...
Click to expand...

Most people forget the body takes time to process pain. The attacker probably won't feel the first one untill the second one is there. Plus the body is an amazing machine. It can run on one lung. It can keep going for 15 seconds or more after the heart is completely ripped apart. The human body is hard to destroy and even something like a .454 Casull is unlikely to cause an instant stop.

have a gun that you can shoot well... just the presence will likely stop almost all encounters you're likely to encounter
Click to expand...

I have had to pull multiple times. Not once have I ever had to fire. Predators usually move on once they see the prey is just as deadly. I don't count on that always being the case but so far it has been.

be prepared to deal with bad guy or bad guys if the gun doesn't stop them
Click to expand...

Almost nobody mentions this. It is a real concern though. If three or four shots don't do the trick you might be fighting to keep your gun. Know how to handle things if bullets fail.
 
Last edited:
A 380 is no better or worse than a standard loaded 38 special, modern 9mm and 38 HP designs along with modern firearms designs, at least in my mind made the 380 obsolete in anything but a mouse gun. My Keltech PF-9 is smaller and lighter than my old Walther PPK/s and is a 9mm, this provides an excellent example of my point.
 
"Stopping Power"
That all depends on the person your shooting at in a self defence scenerio.

The size of the bad guy. (a 280/320 lbd over 6 ft giant)
The bad guy can be Hyped-Up on drugs.(feels no pain).
The bad guy can be a fast moveing (hard to hit) target.
What is the bad guy wearing. (winter time layered clothing).

With all this in mind, I personally like the BULLET that has the capability of doing damage.....the "Federal Hydra Shock".
It's only offered in certain calibers. (.380 / 9mm / 40S&W / .45).
 
"Conventional wisdom states that it's better to have any gun than to be unarmed. ....Can you confidently assume that 80%+ of the time, 3 shots will incapacitate a human before they can harm you? " [CoffeeGuns]

I test all my carry ammo and handguns, and have come to the conclusion that the only role for the 380 is as a backup pistol. Problem is that a minimum of 4 good hits is necessary (against a determined assailant) before an adequate stop can be assured. Consider the fact that most small 380s are short barreled DAO and that most attacks occur at 3 to 8 feet, getting 4 accurate shots off is difficult.

And consider that 2 shots from a 9mm para or a 38 spl will likely do the job, its a no-brainer that if you want to increase your chances at survival you will step up in caliber.
 
SEAMAN... not picking on you... only curious...

I test all my carry ammo and handguns, and have come to the conclusion that the only role for the 380 is as a backup pistol.
Click to expand...

how did you come to this conclusion ??? I've shot wood chucks at 15ft twice with 125 grain 357 magnum loads & had them crawl off...

how do you know that...

that 2 shots from a 9mm para or a 38 spl will likely do the job
Click to expand...

& that 2 shots from a .380 will not do the job...

certainly ( by whats generally accepted ) the 125 grain 357 magnum does a better job than any of the 9mm loadings, & yet more than 1 wood chuck has crawled away from 2 COM hits with the 125 - 357's, in my presence... & that wood chuck is 1/10 the size of a human
 
animals immediately run when they're shot because they don't understand what just happened to them

would some people act like that? sure.

but i know of people who have been shot once, actually with a .22, and then just dropped what they were doing to get the person to stop shooting
 
some animals stop right away too... I've shot rabbits before with a .410 & couldn't find one bb that appeared to enter the rabbit... it looked like it died of fright ???

that mind set is how most humans woould react as well... but induce some hard drug use, a "jone'sen" junkie or a ton of adreniline... & you could very easily see what might look like "bullet proof man" someone so "disconected" from their body or so numb, that they may act long after they are really dead
 
Just want to echo what others have said -- I think we overblow the importance of caliber, when what really matters is having a firearm, the proper training, and a defensive mindset. In the overwhelming majority of cases, simply having (and being prepared to use) a firearm will deter an attack. Consider: Dr. Gary Keck's (pro-CCW) research showed that less than 47% actually pointed their firearms at the criminal, less than a quarter (22%) actually fired, less than 15% fired intending to hit someone (the other 7% were warning shots), and less than 8% actually hit their targets. In other words, your odds are less than 1/10 that "caliber" will actually be a factor in a defensive engagement. The other 90% of the game, so to speak, is having a firearm, proper training, and a defensive mindset.

But that's even assuming you get into a gunfight. If we step back further...according to the FBI, there were 1,318,398 violent crimes in 2009 (out of 307,006,550 Americans). Let's assume for a moment that every single one of those victims had a firearm (if only that were true). Taking into account Dr. Keck's research and making some statistical assumptions (8% of 1,318,398 of 307,006,550), you come to the rough analysis/conclusion that in 2009, caliber "mattered" (or would have mattered) for only 0.0343% of all Americans. Of course, this isn't even taking demographics into account. Are you male or female? How old are you? Are you a member of a minority group? What is your socioeconomic status? Do you live in an urban, suburban, or rural area? Your chances of encountering violent crime dramatically increases (or drops) depending on who you are, where you live and what you do.

Compare that to auto accidents -- 6,420,000 auto accidents in 2005, in which 2,900,000 Americans were injured and another 42,636 killed. Can we agree that it's far, far, far more likely that the average CCW permit-holder will get into a serious car accident tonight than will engage in a gun fight with a gaggle of 6'5" drugged up crazies? Well then why don't we get into "caliber wars" about our vehicles -- comparing crash test ratings and consumer reports and the efficacy of this car's safety features over the merits of that one in some sort of hypothetical worst-case scenario accident?

Do you see what I mean? In the long run, the caliber wars are a bit silly since they matter (on average in any given calendar year) for only 0.03% of us. Don't get me wrong -- most of us are firearms enthusiasts on a firearms forum, so it's fun to debate this or that, but I think most of us would also agree that all handgun calibers suck. Some just suck less. What we should focus on is having a firearm, the proper training, and a defensive mindset.

(Thankfully, most thoughtful/wise/experienced forum users repeat this mantra to new TFLers who post "HI! I just got my CCW. SO EXCITED! I am looking for the perfect gun in the perfect caliber. What should I get? Also, is it true that there is a place in a man's head that, if you shoot it, it will blow up?")
 
Last edited:
you're right about the junkies and whatnot, but from my experience where i'm at, they're usually not high when they commit the crime, they're committing the crime so they can go get high

it's definitely possible that you can walk around after getting hit with a .44 magnum, but that doesn't mean it's just as likely as walking around after getting hit with a .22LR

people seem to be saying that just because these things CAN happen, they WILL happen

just because a .22 CAN stop someone with one shot, if the shot is placed perfectly, that doesn't mean it WILL

and it doesn't mean that a bigger projectile won't do more to stop the subject with one shot than the .22 did

people like to think of worst-case scenarios, and about the most worst-case you can get (besides your weapon malfunctioning or you missing) is you only get one shot to stop the attacker

if you're only going to get one shot on the attacker, why not make it the biggest projectile you can? if i only have time to throw one rock at a person that i know i'm going to hit in the head, i'm going to pick up the largest rock i can find....
 
Ahoy Magnum Wheel Man ---

re 380 cartridge

"how did you come to this conclusion ???" [Magnum Wheel Man]

By testing ammo thru various media: pork ribs, clothing, leather, various woods, metals, washing machine, etc. Yes I know the scientific methodolgy is questionable.

"...how do you know that...2 shots from a .380 will not do the job..." [Magnum Wheel Man]

I know that in tests, the 380 has done far less damage to media than 9mm para or 38 spl. For example, a 380 bullet penetrated one and one-half spruce 2x4s, the 9mm para penetrated more than five 2x4s.

Penetration to vital body part stops the deadly attacker.

The 9mm para has significantly more power and the 38 spl is a heavier slug. Fact is most nations use the 9mm para as their choice of handgun battle round and the 38 spl has a record of being a good stopper, many Americans watched live as Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald with a snub-nose 38 spl Colt, 158 slug, and years later watched the evening news when the Saigon police chief shot a Viet Cong with a S&W 38 spl. Both one shot stops, both men collapsed immediately, Oswald was dead within hours and the Viet Cong died immediately at the scene.

There is also the example of a Mississippi woman who was shot thru the head (brain) with a 380, thru and thru, she called the police for help and when they arrived she made them tea (while holding a towel to her head).

Bottom line, I don't have a lot of confidence in the 380 cartridge, especially against a determined attacker.
 
thanks for the explaination...

my expirience has been shooting live critters around the farm with my CCW weapons... & even a 45 ACP isn't 100% on critters as little as an oppossum when shot COM

so while I can understand that you questioning the 380... I really question any handgun I carry, & I carry much bigger more powerful rounds than 9mm... ( actually my carry battery ranges from a NAA mini to my full sized 10mm or 45 Colt revolver with 6-8 guns / cartridges in between... 45 Colt snubbie on my belt )

I even question 12 ga slugs as a one shot stop, after witnessing my buddy shooting a deer from about 25 ft... the slug hit a rib going in & litterally blew a basket ball sized hole in the off side... blood shot out everywhere for a circle around 25 ft... yet the deer ran almost a mile up a pretty steep hill before it finally laid down

so I have to believe that any gun is going to stop 90% or better of the threats, & be prepared for failure to stop with any gun I have that day... & just hope it's not my day to die

I think too many people have too much confidence in their carry gun... shooting paper... trying to kill animals with a handgun give one reason to question just about any handgun caliber
 
No, when certain criteria are met, you are authorized to shoot another human being to prevent him from carrying out a certain class of violent crimes when there is no other reasonable option available to you. If he dies that's acceptable, but I know of no laws that explicitly give someone permission to kill another person--that authorize a person to kill legally. The laws allow the use of deadly force with the understanding that death MAY result, they aren't about authorizing citizens to kill.
Click to expand...

Now you know why I said can of worms.:D

Nevada Revised Statue

1. For the purposes of NRS 41.085 and 41.130, any person who uses, while lawfully in his residence or in transient lodging, force which is intended or likely to cause death or bodily injury is presumed to have had a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily injury to himself or another person lawfully in the residence or transient lodging if the force is used against a person who is committing burglary or invasion of the home and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that burglary or invasion of the home was being committed. An action to recover damages for personal injuries to or the wrongful death of the person who committed burglary or invasion of the home may not be maintained against the person who used such force unless the presumption is overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

Now I'm no lawyer-- never studied law a day in my life--but making force lawful that's "intended to cause death" sure sounds like a right to intentionally kill another human being within the context of the statue in my state. Sounds rather specific to me and clear that just the presence of an intruder in your home meets the criteria re: reasonable fear.

NOTE: the law is similar outside of one's residence within the context of different, more strict, criteria.
 
Last edited:
That's an interesting (and fairly unique as far as I can tell) wording, and I'll keep it in mind for future discussions. While it doesn't come flat out and say that the defender is "authorized to kill", it certainly does say that he's authorized to use "force which is intended or likely to cause death or bodily injury" which is close to the same thing.

It does give residents of your state a little extra leeway in that it prevents the prosecutor from trying to show an improper state of mind by claiming that the defender's actions were intended to cause death, not just focused on defense. I like the additional protection from the legal perspective but, that said, it's still important to keep the proper goal in mind from a tactical standpoint even when the specific wording of a particular law might blur the distinction. In other words, if a defender focuses on the goal of stopping the attacker and on defense he's very likely going to make wiser decisions from a tactical standpoint than if he focuses on trying to kill the attacker.

For example, being properly focused on defense completely eliminates the desire to pursue which would be encouraged by the misconception that the goal is to kill the attacker. As we all know, pursuit of the attacker can lead to both legal and tactical problems for a defender.

And in the specific example posited by the OP, the proper focus would help the defender understand that if he's dithering about whether or not to shoot someone that it's very likely that it's because deadly force is not justified. If a person really needs to use deadly force, it's highly unlikely that he'll be concerned about the wisdom of shooting his attacker--if he really needs to use deadly force, he'll be out of other reasonable options.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top